From: "Kristian Jensen" <[log in to unmask]>
> Muke Tever wrote:
> > >===== Original Message From Constructed Languages List
> > >Actually the <d> in "bad" is not so much "half-voiced" as it is
> > >weakly articulated. Its important to remember that another important
> > >perceptual cue is _articulatory strength_. English /p t k/ are fortis,
> > >while /b d g/ are lenis. This is most evident in syllable-final
> > >position. In some dialects, both series of stops are completely voiceless
> > >in syllable-final position. In these dialects, the perceptual cue lies in
> > >the length of the preceding sound. E.g. /b&d/ "bad" vs /b&t/ "bat" is
> > >[b&:t] vs [b&t] respectively (where [&:] is suppose to be half-length,
> > >not full-length).
> >
> > I would generally have something like [b&?] for "bat", so the difference
there
> > would be POA instead of voicing.
>
> Ahem! Right! <d> was a bad example.
>
> Try "bag" vs "back" > [b&:g] vs [b&k].
> Or "lab" vs "lap" > [l&:b] vs [l&p].
I should probably mention that I would glottalize all these final voiceless
stops, although it's only the /t/ that ever does so to the point of its own
disappearance.
*Muke!